The hidden price of India’s ethanol rush
This month, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition that argued Indian consumers should be given a choice between regular petrol and 20 per cent ethanol-blended petrol (E20). The government claimed the move benefits sugarcane farmers. But what about the millions of drivers whose cars and two-wheelers cannot handle it? Once again, consumers are left out of the equation. Realistically E20 may be good in the long run, but India rushed ahead without giving motorists the freedom to choose.
For anyone driving a vehicle made before April 2023, filling up with E20 is not just inconvenient; it could damage engines, reduce mileage, and increase maintenance costs. Imagine a middle class family still paying off a scooter bought in 2020, suddenly being told their fuel could corrode the engine. That is not an upgrade, it is an unfair burden. The bigger problem is that India seems to have a habit of introducing reforms that lo ok farmer- or climate-friendly on paper but come at the expense of consumer choice. Take the recent push for electric vehicles.
Charging infrastructure is still patchy, yet subsidies and regulations nudge buyers toward EVs even when reliable alternatives are scarce. Or look at renewable energy; consumers face higher power tariffs while being told it is for the “greater good.” The E20 rollout fits this pattern – policy first, consumer later. Contrast this with how other countries manage fuel transitions. In the United States, E10 fuel (10 per cent ethanol) has been the standard for years, but E15 and higher blends are optional, not mandatory. Fuel stations clearly label pumps, and motorists can decide what goes into their tank.
Brazil, the poster child of ethanol policy, provides both pure petrol and ethanol blends, leaving the final decision to consumers. That’s the crucial difference, the choice. India skipped that step. No parallel supply of E10. No labeling at pumps. No consumer education campaign. Just a blanket rollout of E20. The message is clear, the state decides, and motorists must comply. That is not how policy in a growing democracy should work. Supporters of the move argue that higher ethanol use supports sugarcane farmers and reduces oil imports. True. But the costs are being shifted onto ordinary people.
If the government wants to help farmers, there are better tools, direct income support, productivity subsidies, or even targeted blending mandates for government fleets. Passing the bill to consumers who bought vehicles in good faith is simply unfair. There is also a bigger risk. If consumers lose trust in green policies because they feel forced and costly, India risks breeding resentment toward future environmental reforms. People are more likely to embrace ethanol, EVs, or renewables if they see them as better choices, not mandatory sacrifices. Choice is not the enemy of progress; it is the foundation of lasting change. India has a chance to fix this.
At the very least, fuel stations should stock both E10 and E20, with clear labeling so consumers can decide. Automakers should be given a transition window where both fuels are available. And a proper awareness campaign is overdue to help motorists understand what works for their vehicles. Better policy would treat consumers as partners in progress, not passive subjects of experimentation. E20 might be a logical step for India’s energy future, but unless it comes with real choice, it risks being remembered not as a milestone, but as yet another case where Indian consumers were left holding the bill.
To Read more about Ethanol Industry & Bio Energy News, continue reading Agriinsite.com
Source : The Statesman
